Tuesday, March 02, 2010

The August 2008 war with Russia exacerbated many existing problems in Georgia, perhaps most obviously whether Tbilisi’s priority should be the establishment of a strong state or one with democratic institutions. With Mikheil Saakashvili at the helm, this seems to be an either-or proposition. Although he is talented and well educated, Saakashvili is unwilling to allow the whole of Georgia’s political class to take part in the democratic process. He has suppressed dissent and made little effort to include members of the opposition in practical domestic and foreign-policy decisions, other than in a retouched manner for PR purposes—thus straying from the principles and values of democracy in favor of his own personal political ambitions and interests. And, of course, it seems that the Georgian opposition is disorganized and chaotic.

Few in the West, however, recognize Saakashvili’s true intentions. They either do not know or do not care much, being busy and over-burdened with their own complex and challenging problems. Though this regime is better than the last, there is a lot more talk of change and democratic politics than action. The current government has paid more attention to its international image than with reforming Georgian politics. With the help of foreign lobbyists, Saakashvili successfully created his own narrative about Georgia’s supposed respect for democratic institutions, one eagerly accepted by Western states. This narrative went over particularly well in the United States, where the Bush administration and, after that, presidential candidate John McCain offered steadfast support to Tbilisi. It seems the Obama administration’s position may be little different.

In Western capitals, Georgia was recognized as the “the beacon of democracy” and, to be fully sincere, the Revolutions of the Roses began that way. But this later didn’t reflect the realities on the ground. Georgia remained undemocratic and illiberal. The disconnect between Western perception and Georgian reality was no more evident than in the war with Russia. In the West, the conflict was seen through Saakashvili’s version of events, with Moscow as the aggressor, instead of the truer line of argument—that Saakashvili, being strongly provoked to do so by the Russians, got Georgia involved in the war in a vain attempt to integrate Tbilisi into the Euro-Atlantic community. That strategy did not work. America and Europe did not risk war with Moscow to bail out Georgia. And our problems cannot be solved through Western sympathy alone. So Georgia still remains defeated, dismembered and occupied country.

The way out of Georgia’s post-war crisis lies in ensuring the continued enfranchisement of all citizens of Georgians in the country’s political process. The government must search for compromises and maintain a political balance, since democracy is a constantly renewable contract resting on a country’s institutional systems and legitimacy. Free-and-fair elections, even ones recognized by the international community, are only the beginning of the process. Even undemocratic and illiberal countries are capable of holding fair elections that deserve the approval of both foreign observers and the wider international community. Georgia has been governed by illiberal methods, and the main administrative and financial resources of the country are often directed in the interests of one political clan. Real democratic systems require mutual responsibility between the ruling elite and its citizens, including first of all the opposition. A secure democracy is one that is governed according to its constitution and its laws. Only by striving to fully embody this democratic ideal will Georgia be able to cope with the problems it is facing.

Tbilisi must not look abroad for assistance with its political difficulties—and this includes in its troubles with Russia. The West will not go to war with Moscow over Georgia. The United States is beset with its own domestic and foreign-policy agendas and can ill afford to antagonize the Kremlin over a single Eastern European state. Europe, meanwhile, is beholden to Russian energy supplies and other business and trade interests. Moscow is well aware of the leverage it holds and uses its powerful commercial and political interests to its advantage. Georgia must be very careful not to make hasty decisions that would annoy Russia or anybody else in the world, as it will find little more than a sympathetic ear in the international community, as it belatedly realized in the aftermath of the conflict over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

So Georgia must first and foremost help itself. It must settle its own internal problems by ensuring its adherence to democratic governance. Georgians must learn from their past mistakes, and realize that Saakashvili’s obsession with his standing in Western capitals will get them nowhere. A commitment to real democratic reform that includes Georgians of all political stripes is the only way out of the country’s current post-war malaise.

FRONTLINE CLUB GEORGIA

Frontline Georgia is a media club that aims to serve as a politically-neutral venue for journalists, public officials, students, intellectuals come together in a dialogue over media, social, political and cultural issues important for Georgia and the region. Frontline Georgia holds panel discussions, screenings, exhibitions, conferences and master classes.

Frontline Georgia’s mission is to contribute to quality journalism and exchange of views. Its Events Program will bring together the key players and thinkers in politics and the media and give a member an opportunity not only to hear from experts but to ask questions and contribute to the discussion in a relaxed and informal atmosphere.

While there are other meeting places for important public discussions, Frontline Georgia is among the very few, where people from different ideological and political camps meet together. This neutrality has been one of the biggest achievements of the club, which operates in Georgia’s highly politicized and polarized social and media environment.

Ruth Olshan in her film portrays musicians who work with different approaches: a male choir searching and cultivating old folk songs in the Caucasus region, a female choir, a school dance company and musicians who enhance Georgian folk music. There is a common denominator that links the diverse protagonists in Olshan’s film: Singing, dancing and music are crucial elements of their lifestyle. Music is as important as “air to breath,” explains the director of the female choir . The subtle camera work discreetly catches moments and spontaneous encounters, showing that the rehearsals and the singing brings moments to these women where they are taken away from their normal course of life. For life in Rustavi, a small town near Tiflis, seems bleak. The industry is dead, the unemployment rate is enormous. You ask yourself how people can live. The choir women’s beauty and positive energy exude an affirmative sign of life, even in mournful moments. Men and women sing and dance both joy and sorrow off their chest. In Georgia, music seems to be omnipresent, almost existential. Even if a young singer does not think folk music is “sexy”, he still gets hooked. It gets under his skin. The film pays tribute to this fascination, vitality, and spiritedness.

IMPRESSUM

Disclaimer

Most of the material on this site is sourced from other online publishers. I hereby acknowledge the original authors of this material. This material does not always reflect the views and opinions of the webmaster.
This site does not host any of the videos found here, or upload them to the internet. Rather, we take advantage of existing material that has been uploaded by other parties.